kthatch wrote:Idea: Could the whole process of evolution be God's way of working? Why do they have to be two seperate beliefs? I believe in the Bible, and I believe that God would not lie to us. We ask for proof that God exists, we demand an answer to all the questions that we could possibly ask, and yet the answer is right in front of us...evolution at its best. Evolution IS divine. Take Biology and you will see that there is nothing non-divine about it. The whole process, starting at the very beginning, is so awe-inspiring that it, in fact, has become an inspiration for me and has left me thinking, "How can one Not believe in God?" Pray tell. Give me five proofs that their isn't a God...

It doesn,t work like this. There is no need to disprove the existence of God, we just do not need any divine intervention to explain the world. It's the Occam razor: divine creatures are not necessary, hence there is no need to inquire about their (non)existence, at least from the scientific point of view. One can always argue that the laws of our world are in fact the manifestation of the divine design, an argument that is sometimes called the God in the gaps hypothesis, however that is a philosophical question that has very little bearing toward the comprehension of the world that science is trying to achieve.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

I think its so easy for theists to defend themselves simply because GOD can do anything so they link any scientific fact to religion.Here in India there is a Hindu Monkey God called Hamuman and many people think evolution is because we are ancestors of Hanuman.Some cases they give even bigger descriptions saying that humans were born when Angels and beautiful monkeys joined.The list just goes on ................the interpretation gets funnier

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky

kclo4x wrote:Alright, well being a strong atheist i have gotten myself into a discussion with a creationist! i do it for fun... i really don't know why

anyways, ive made a game out of it and said

Tell me the 5 best proofs of god, and i will tell you the 5 best proofs of evolution.

Then you show me, how my 5 best proofs of evolution are wrong or try to show how they are wrong if you believe they are, and i will do the same with your 5 best proofs of god. Alright?

So, i know that i could already make some really good points, but i just want to hear the best from the best because i haven't even taken biology yet.

so if you guys would be kind enough to tell me what you think the 5 best proofs of evolution are, i would be quite happy

I could do something better, all your 'proofs' are just evidence supporting a guess or theory that may or may not be real or true, just like the idea of man being from a monkey. once that was the hat of trade, and in some posters still is. why? because of the similarities in DNA. yet in current times scientists have developed the idea that this statement is not true, however, may have had a common ancestors. so why you athiests try to replace God with science is beyond me when there is always something unknown, and what is know is still a theory...or a weak fact that could be twisted upside down any moment. also why you try and put yourself above a religious person just because of science is stupidiest thing ever when science has a rich history of religious people along with others who may not be religious but do believe in God or atleast a 'higher power'. so show some respect please to the people who have helped develope science and those who have or do feel the same as they do.

now, secondly...all evidence to even support evolution would never and will never disproove God, nor any faith for that matter. not because someones stuborn and relies on "God can do what ever He wants", or "divine being could do what ever they want". Now that is a quick and easy response that some rely on too much as athiests common response will be a simple "lol" with some kind of insult. I never seen any kind of an attempt to disprove, so if anyone here thinks they got a good shot, try. I'd like to see what you have. Besides that, science has been describe as a natural, where as opposite of super natural. please explain your stance in disproving religion when most sciences do not cover explanation in that field.

kthatch wrote:Idea: Could the whole process of evolution be God's way of working? Why do they have to be two seperate beliefs? I believe in the Bible, and I believe that God would not lie to us. We ask for proof that God exists, we demand an answer to all the questions that we could possibly ask, and yet the answer is right in front of us...evolution at its best. Evolution IS divine. Take Biology and you will see that there is nothing non-divine about it. The whole process, starting at the very beginning, is so awe-inspiring that it, in fact, has become an inspiration for me and has left me thinking, "How can one Not believe in God?" Pray tell. Give me five proofs that their isn't a God...

It doesn,t work like this. There is no need to disprove the existence of God, we just do not need any divine intervention to explain the world. It's the Occam razor: divine creatures are not necessary, hence there is no need to inquire about their (non)existence, at least from the scientific point of view. One can always argue that the laws of our world are in fact the manifestation of the divine design, an argument that is sometimes called the God in the gaps hypothesis, however that is a philosophical question that has very little bearing toward the comprehension of the world that science is trying to achieve.

Biggest problem is that most athiests along with others assume that this believe is to fill in gaps, when the basis of some religions (Christianity) does non of that 'filling in'. there are some who will tell you, God is reason for everything to truly fill in a gap in their understanding, but opposite of early mythology Christianity actually moves out side of that thought of reason. instead of saying or looking for God as reason to this or that, many Christians actually take the stand that it is about knowing God and His Creation, and loving it...loving Him. where as many early religions filled in things and beings as for lightning, river, etc. The Christian Faith focuses on other attributes all while realizing the existance through God.

alextemplet wrote:Does anyone else think that most of our discussions in this "evolution" forum have nothing at all to do with evolution? We could just as easily call this the "religious crusade" forum.

I cannot agree more with you.And the new name sounds great,"Religious crusade" or may be "Devils Advocates"

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky

gfrabizi wrote:Biggest problem is that most athiests along with others assume that this believe is to fill in gaps, when the basis of some religions (Christianity) does non of that 'filling in'. there are some who will tell you, God is reason for everything to truly fill in a gap in their understanding, but opposite of early mythology Christianity actually moves out side of that thought of reason. instead of saying or looking for God as reason to this or that, many Christians actually take the stand that it is about knowing God and His Creation, and loving it...loving Him. where as many early religions filled in things and beings as for lightning, river, etc. The Christian Faith focuses on other attributes all while realizing the existance through God.

Nice move of differentiating Christianity from other older mythologies.Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me...And don't tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky

gfrabizi wrote:Biggest problem is that most athiests along with others assume that this believe is to fill in gaps, when the basis of some religions (Christianity) does non of that 'filling in'. there are some who will tell you, God is reason for everything to truly fill in a gap in their understanding, but opposite of early mythology Christianity actually moves out side of that thought of reason. instead of saying or looking for God as reason to this or that, many Christians actually take the stand that it is about knowing God and His Creation, and loving it...loving Him. where as many early religions filled in things and beings as for lightning, river, etc. The Christian Faith focuses on other attributes all while realizing the existance through God.

Nice move of differentiating Christianity from other older mythologies.Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me...And don't tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

Im unclear on what is meant by "other part of the Bible this is not all considered". what is meant exactly there?

Thank you for your recognition, but to be serious...could the older mythologies be explained as they are? I mean, there is that possibility through some observation that someone would want to say, "I dont know why this is therefore it must be that". Kind of like the old thought of something from nothing, where it was common for people to believe that living things or creatures (not humans) came form non-living things. From observing rats appear from a pile of materials or bacteria grow from old soup, or magets that come from rotten meat. However, there is still that claim of someone. Since we do not know exactly how those religions started, its let to a guess. Therefore that claim of 'someone' some divine being is giving power above self to explain not just for what was not known, but what had character. like a river god for instance...water fell from above, there was a source of water upstream, it flowed downward, could be trapped...yet still the river was given a characteristic. the same thing is done today, but with use of different terms and without making it out to be a person or in a being's control(having someone being able to rise and lower tide or rush someone away to their death).

Reason I mintion this is because science has even acclaimed (within the classes atleast) to assume is to be an ass. therefore it seems like too many jump to one claim without really giving a thought about it. making it appear to do the exact same thing they blame their ancestors of doing (not to say anyone here did that, but people have done it). Why there is even talk about a gene or area within the Brian almost programed to search for God or a god. And that in it self makes sense with supporting evidence as there are also evidence given to disprove it.

E8-not42 wrote:If the offspring has changed (improved or not) in anyway from the parents and God did not do it ( even creationists don't say he personally designs every single person) , then that leaves rom for another explanation.

If there can be even the smallest improvement without God's designing it directly, then the path from ooze to human is possible without God. You just need time to 'add' the improvements together.

The exact definition of evolution is irrelevant (though nice to know).

The fact is you do believe in evolutions main premise. Improvement in design from a system - not a creator.

There a quote from a scientist during the renaissance era I believe...its been some time since I read about it, and I forget his name...perhaps someone else knows.

David George wrote:Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me...And don't tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

It's simple. All of the animals that were declared "unclean" were, before modern food preparation, very unhealthy to eat. For example, pork (unclean) is loaded with tons of parasites if it's not prepared and cooked properly, whereas beef (clean) can be safely be eaten rare. Those dietary laws were mainly written into the Scriptures to ensure that the Hebrews ate healthy diets.

Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

alextemplet wrote:It's simple. All of the animals that were declared "unclean" were, before modern food preparation, very unhealthy to eat. For example, pork (unclean) is loaded with tons of parasites if it's not prepared and cooked properly, whereas beef (clean) can be safely be eaten rare. Those dietary laws were mainly written into the Scriptures to ensure that the Hebrews ate healthy diets.

In the book of leveticus[Its also give in the other books] it was give with specific names, that some animals and birds were unclean and others were clean.And beef is also loaded with parasites.Besides the classification doesn't seem to have your interpretation at all.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky